FCPX vs 4K file

Hi everyone I have a problem, I got clips in 4k mp4 of a lumix gh5 and i would try to do a mount but my mac can not work them well, everything works with shots, and can convert them to prores 444 with fcpx while Amount and possibly how?
I have tried to click "optimiza media" but files prore 422 and not 444 come out.
thank you

Is this 10-bit media?

yes 10 bit

I forgot to say, I have to work with MP4 files in 4K 10 bit on FCPX but in the end I will make a video all in 1920x1080 fullHD 8 bit, so I wonder the best way to work without shots or problems thanks...
:oops:

FCP doesn't seem to work with 10-bit from this camera at the moment. Did you try converting them in Compressor? I've never seen this media myself.

If I try to convert with compressor it does not work !!!!
Compressor says the file is unknown and does not convert it!

Any chance you can upload a small file somewhere? I have some apps I could test it with.

Tom Wolsky wrote: Any chance you can upload a small file somewhere? I have some apps I could test it with.

With smartphone right now, but I downloaded the files from early official GH5 tester Neumann long ago, and they play back well in FCPX, whereas not in Resolve (only Studio 14, in "lite" Media Offline), and allegedly bad in older Premiere version and not supported at all in the current update.
I think the stuff might be better transcoded to ProResHQ, I didn't know Compressor didn't like it.

Link to the Neumann footage:
www.mediafire.com/file/m5rrourqi6sp8a1/N...onic_GH5_Footage.zip

ok

Seen mentions that GH5 10bit files don't work in Premiere either (and maybe Resolve as well, but unsure of that). So maybe it's some funky new format Panasonic uses and the NLE's need to incorporate support for it.

The GH5 is 422 why do you want to convert to 444? You just add extra data with no information by doing that. (= bigger files for nothing)

So I can convert the MP4 file to 4k in prore 422 HQ and I will have the highest quality but in 1920x1080 I say good ??

thank you

That's not really how ProRes 422 and 4444 work. Converting an existing 422 file to ProRes 422HQ will result in noticeable loss compared to converting that same file to 4444. Done many tests myself. It doesn't add any information in 4444 and the files are bigger, but the loss in visual quality is indeed less no matter what you convert to 422 and 4444 (even 420 source files). That said, it'd be extremely tough to notice the difference and 422 HQ is more than likely perfectly fine. I'd only recommend 4444 when you have the space and when video quality is of an absolute paramount importance.

10-bit 4K GH5 clips import and play just fine in FCP X. If your hardware does not allow you to play them smoothly, there are two ways you can go:

1. Create optimized media.

This will convert the AVC-1 MP4 files to ProRes 422. ProRes 422 is a full 10-bit codec, you won't lose any quality and you will get instant smooth playback. As you will be outputting an 8-bit master, I agree with Dmitri that converting the clips to ProRes 4444 would be a waste of drive space.

2. Create proxy media.

This might be a better workflow if you have tons of clips to process. Converting the files to ProRes Proxy and editing in Proxy mode will take up much less drive space than working with Optimized media and will still allow you to view your clips at a high visual quality for editing. Just don't forget to switch back to Original Media for exporting at the highest possible resolution.



- Ronny

Axel wrote: Link to the Neumann footage:
www.mediafire.com/file/m5rrourqi6sp8a1/N...onic_GH5_Footage.zip

Are these files 4 K of the 10-bit gh5?

click wrote:

Axel wrote: Link to the Neumann footage:
www.mediafire.com/file/m5rrourqi6sp8a1/N...onic_GH5_Footage.zip

Are these files 4 K of the 10-bit gh5?

Three of them are 10-bit, the two @30p and the one @24p. Imported them with no Optimized Media and files left in place. Checked warn and stop when frame skipping occurs (just for playback testing, usually I consider this irrelevant, since I don't edit to tape) in preferences, viewer set to Better Quality. Worked with one Alex4D Adjustment layer with LUT and two additional instances of Color Correction applied.

My buddy with his one-year-old $10.000 HP workstation - easily my system's specs doubled - and CC2015 couldn't play them smoothly. Read a few articles from Premiere users on EOSHD, and they reported the same. Only the 60p clips were recognized by Resolve 12.5 ("lite") and also on Resolve 14 ("lite") public beta. Apparently, Resolve Studio (at least 14) accepts the clips ...

I agree with what has been said above. I think you'd have a hard time seeing any difference between the default Optimized Media (ProRes422) and HQ. Had this been my camera, I'd use Optimized Media.

However, with the next FW update you will have an All-I-codec for 10-bit @400MBPS. This is more compressed (MP4) than ProRes422 (Mpeg2) but almost the same bitrate. So maybe it fits better to ProResHQ. But not necessarily. The All-I-codec of the GH3 didn't improve quality (okay, some time-related compression artifacts were less, but as you know Pana codecs are quite good at avoiding those), it was just easier to edit.

thank you

Anybody here had the chance to use the GH5 4K-422-10bit, All-i codec in FCPX yet? (new version of fcpx or old, doesn't matter.) (I've tried it on a 2013 Mac Pro, running 10.3.2, and a 2017 MacBook Pro running 10.4)

Doesn't seem to be playing back smoothly on any of my systems... actually, playback is worse than the Longop.

seems very odd to me.

All 10-bit H.264 still needs to be optimized in FCP.